The existing awnings on buildings barely provide enough cover for three people side by side, so how more 'pedestrian friendly' do they really make it?Nort wrote:For a precinct like Rundle Mall the buildings having awnings is a big deal, it makes it a lot more pedestrian friendly.rev wrote:Big deal they don't want awnings. So what?
Are we going to start knocking developments and new retail now because of minor things like that?
We have the worlds biggest tech company wanting to open a stand alone store in our city, and all you lot can find to talk about is whether the bloody facade of the store will have awnings or not?
It's a trivial matter people, get over it and let the topic get on track.
Check out the link posted earlier, quite a few of their store fronts do have awnings. If they don't think it makes business sense to put their store in a place like Rundle Mall that's their choice, however they aren't significant enough to be worth trashing the rules over.
The Apple shop front will not be the full 50 or so meters fronting Rundle Mall..
Apple is not a big deal? They are only the worlds largest publicly traded company.....
So you guys think this Apple store should not go ahead unless they have awnings like the rest of the RM facade?
Ok, fair enough. Opinions are opinions.
Cant wait for the complaining to start when Adelaide is being laughed at, again.